99. Townsend v. Little, 109 U. S 504, 510, 27 L. Ed. 1012; Kirby v. Tallmadge, 160 U. S. 379, 40 L. Ed. 463; Adams-booth Co. v. Reid, 112 Fed. 106; Munn v. Achey, 110 Ala. 628, 18 So. 299; Rubel v. Parker, 107 Ark. 314, 155 S. W. 114; Goodwynne v. Bellerby, 116 Ga. 901, 43 S. E. 275; Harris v. Mclntyre, 118 111. 275, 8 N. E. 182; Nabel-spach v. Shaw, 146 Mich. 493, 109

N. W. 843, 111 N. W. 343; Bell v. Twilight, 22 N. H. 500 (sem-ble); Rankin v. Coar, 46 N. J. Eq. 566, 11 L. R. A. 661, 22 Atl. 177; Patterson v. Mills, 121 N. C. 258; Atteberry v. O'neil, 42 Wash. 487, 85 Pac. 270. But see Wyatt v. Elam, 23 Ga. 201, 68 Am. Dec. 518.

1. Watson v. Murray, 54 Ark. 499, 16 S. W. 293.

Actual possession by one of two persons having joint interests would seem to be sufficient, ordinarily, to affect a purchaser from a stranger with notice of the individual interest of the other of •such persons.5 The

2. See Kirby v. Talmadge, 160 U. S. 379, 40 L. Ed. 463; Munn v. Achey, 110 Ala. 628, 18 So. 299; Walden v. Williams, 128 Ark. 5, 193 S. W. 71; Smith v. Yule, 31 Cal. 180, 89 Am. Dec. 1G7; Whalen v. Schneider, 281 111. 557, 118 N. E. 41; Thierman v. Bodley, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 756, 63 S. W. 737; Butler v. Stevens, 26 Me. 484 (semble); Pope v. Allen, 90 N. Y. 298; Farmers'

Bank v. Wallace, 45 Ohio St. 152, 12 N. E. 439.

3. Ante, Sec. 571(c).

4. Butler v. Stevens, 26 Me. 484; Rankin v. Coar, 46 N. J. Eq. 566, 11 L. R. A. 661, 22 Atl. 177; Pope v. Allen, 90 N. Y. 298; Cameron v. Romele, 53 Tex. 238, are perhaps to that effect.

5. See Ramirez v. Smith, 94 Tex. 184, 59 S. W. 258; Kerr v.

That the property is occupied by a married couple has been held to put a purchaser from a third person on inquiry as to a title in the wife adverse to such person,7 as it would, no doubt, as to such a title in the husband. And the case would be the same when the husband claims under a lease from the vendor.8 That the property is occupied by a married couple would not ordinarily put a purchaser from the husband on inquiry as to an adverse interest in the wife, he having the right to assume that she is on the premises merely by reason of the marital relationship.9

Whether the joint occupation of husband and wife would be sufficient to put a purchaser from the wife on inquiry as to a title in the husband appears to be a matter in regard to which no positive rule can be asserted.10

Kingsbury, 39 Mich. 150, 33 Am. Rep. 362.

6. Anthe v. Heide, 85 Ala. 236, 4 So. 380; Kirkham v. Moore, 30 Ind. App. 549, 65 N. E. 1042; Wilcox v. Leominster Nat. Bank, 43 Minn. 541, 19 Am. St. Rep. 259, 45 N. W. 1136.

7. Kirby v. Talmadge, 160 U. S. 379, 40 L. Ed. 463; Butler v. Thweatt, 119 Ala. 325, 24 So. 545; Iowa Loan & Trust Co. v. King, 58 Iowa, 598, 12 N. W. 595; Phelan v. Brady, 119 N. Y. 587, 28 L. R. A. 211, 23 N. E. 1109; Walker v. Neil, 117 Ga. 733, 45 S. E. 387.

8. Garrard v. Hull, 92 Ga. 787, 20 S. E. 357.

9. Langley v. Pulliam, 162

Ala. 142, 50 So. 365; Neal v. Perkerson, 61 Ga. 346; Austin v. Southern Home Bldg. & Loan Ass'n, 122 Ga. 439, 50 So. 382; Gray v. Lamb, 207 111. 258, 69 N. E 794; Westerfield v. Kimmer, 82 Ind. 365; Thomas v. Kennedy, 24 Iowa, 397, 95 Am. Dec. 740; Allen v. Caldwell, 55 Mich. 8, 20 N. W. 692. But see Brown v. Carey, 149 Pa. 134, 23 Atl. 1103. 10. That it is sufficient, sec Broome v. Davis, 87 Ga. 584, 13 S. E. 749. That it is not sufficient, see Kirby v. Tallmadgc, 160 U. S. 370, 40 L. Ed. Ed. 463 (dic-tum), Atwood v. Bearss, 47 Mich. 72, 10 N. W. 112 (semble); Fassett v. Smith, 23 N. Y. 252 (semble).

- (f) Possession by tenant under lease. By the decided weight of authority in this country, a purchaser may, by the possession of a third person, be charged with notice of the rights of one under whom such person holds as tenant.11 This effect given to a tenant's possession is based on the theory that, upon inquiring of the tenant as to his rights, the purchaser would be informed as to the identity of the landlord, and would be put on inquiry as to the latter's rights. In England, however, as in one or two cases in this country, the view has been adopted that a purchaser who neglects to inquire into the title of the occupant, while taking subject to such occupant's rights, does not take subject to the rights of one under whom the latter holds as tenant, unless the purchaser knows that the rent is paid to one whose title is inconsistent with that of the vendor.12

The ordinary American rule that the purchaser of land in the possession of a tenant under a lease is charged with notice of the rights of the landlord, has, in a number of cases, been regarded as inapplicable when the same tenant had previously held possession as tenant under the vendor, the theory being that there having been no actual change of possession in such case, a subsequent purchaser from the vendor has no reason to suspect a divestiture of the latter's title.13 One difficulty with this view is that it appears to assume that the purchaser invariably has notice of the prior state of the title. If he is not aware that the tenant formerly held under the vendor, he is certainly not justified in assuming that the tenant holds under the vendor at the time of the sale.14 It might furthermore be questioned whether a purchaser has a right to assume, because he knows that the person in possession was formerly holding under a particular person, that he is still holding under the same person.15 There are occasional decisions apparently opposed to those above cited.16

11. Brunson v. Brooks, 68 Ala. 248; Dutton v. Warschauer, 21 Cal. 609, 82 Am. Dec. 765; O'rourke v. O'connor, 39 Cal. 442; Tillotson v. Mitchell, 111 111. 523; Gallagher v. Northrup, 215 111. 536, 74 N. E. 711; Dickey v. Lyon, 19 Iowa, 544; Townsend v. Blanchard, 117 Iowa, 36, 90 N. W. 519; Penrose v. Cooper, 86 Kan. 597, 121 Pac. 1103; Hanly v. Morse, 32 Me. 287; Brady v. Sloman, 156 Mich. 423, 120 N. W. 795; Wilkins v. Bevier, 43 Minn. 213, 19 Am. St. Rep. 238, 45 N. W. 157; Ludowese v. Amidon, 124 Minn. 288, 144 N. W. 965; Bratton v. Rogers, 62 Miss. 281; Conlee v. Mcdowell, 15 Neb. 184, 18 N. W. 60; Wood v. Price, 79 N. J. Eq. 620, 38 L. R. A. (N. S.) 772, Ann. Cas. 1913A, 1210, 81 Atl.